On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike
at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours.

Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a
centrist with leftward leanings?

Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with
the Russians?

Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the
Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose
word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda?

This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo

Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all)

Hes improved Americas image in the world. He absolutely did. But you
have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major
leader said to me recently. €œWe are convinced,€� he said, €œthat he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€� he said
€œthat he is not strong to support his friends."

Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.)


--
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.
-- Chinese Proverb

On 6/14/2011 6:51 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike
at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours.

Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a
centrist with leftward leanings?

Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with
the Russians?

Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the
Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose
word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda?

This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo

Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all)

Hes improved Americas image in the world. He absolutely did. But you
have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major
leader said to me recently. €œWe are convinced,€� he said, €œthat he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€� he said
€œthat he is not strong to support his friends."

Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.)


--
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.


so you would offer up as a choice the republican party that has single
handed taken the world's greatest and strongest economy and driven it
into a deep recession, which has stonewalled very attempt to administer
a recovery, that has systematically destroyed our treasure by wasting
our blood in foreign engagements without paying for them, that has
abused veterans and refused to give them medical care for their
injuries, that has stolen from the people and given to the rich, that
has fought against any protections for individuals, society, or the
environment because it might constrain the grab for richness of their
masters - thank you very much, I will take any alternative to that, no
matter what his or her failings - all we can hope for is enough people
vote "anything but republican" to take the party out of the main stream
and put it down the drain where it belongs.

Some day, maybe, we can have a fiscally conservative party that actually
conserves, that does not engage in religion as a weapon, and that does
not try to balance the needs of the wealthy upon the backs of the needy.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:58:26 -0700, "." wrote:


so you would offer up as a choice the republican party that has single
handed taken the world's greatest and strongest economy and driven it
into a deep recession,

Sorry fuctard..but the Demos have held all of Congress since 2007 and
the Whitehouse since 2009

Seems you Leftwinger scum bags try and try and try to blame it on Bush
and the Republicans...VBG....but it doesnt work.

Never will work either. This cluster **** is YOURS and yours alone.

Get used to the idea your people couldnt run a lemonaid stand.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by
definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of
course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of
fat people.

The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican
fabrication.

i

Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike
at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours.

Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a
centrist with leftward leanings?

Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with
the Russians?

Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the
Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose
word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda?

This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo

Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all)

He???s improved America???s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you
have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major
leader said to me recently. ???We are convinced,??? he said, ???that he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,??? he said
???that he is not strong to support his friends."

Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.)

"Ignoramus10056" wrote in message
...
On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by
definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of
course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of
fat people.

The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican
fabrication.

i

Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult population
working as we have today:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12

So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an
interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented
percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that
giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at
the top of the economic heap.

In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally
unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession took
the gas out of an employment bubble.

Maybe. It would take a lot of work to analyze it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult population
working as we have today:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12

Women became a larger part of the workforce


If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%)
of the year 2000 as the norm
Then current employment (58.4)
is down about 10% from the norm

But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying
which means businesses are not selling and
therefore won't be
hiring until they have some better prospects
of selling more of their goods and services




So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an
interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented
percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that
giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at
the top of the economic heap.

So current low employment would mean the opposite?
I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier

The middle class may not be accumulating wealth
in the form of consumer goods
But they are also not accumulating debt
And the federal deficit is where the money is going
It's not going to the top earners.

Of course you take away the federal deficit
and you have a full blown depression

I suppose if you have invested your life savings
into over-priced gold and guns and ammo
you want a depression to avoid looking silly



In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally
unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession took
the gas out of an employment bubble.

No evidence that is true

what was unsustainable is the level of consumption
that produced that high level of employment
And that was unsustainable because it was financed
by private debt which can't go up forever

the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that
somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports
are -$0.5 trillion a year
The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years
to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit

But that is done now
they aint gonna do it anymore

So now what?

-jim





Maybe. It would take a lot of work to analyze it.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Huntress wrote:


Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult
population
working as we have today:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12

Women became a larger part of the workforce

That's true, although it had flattened out around 20 years ago, until the
latest recession:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...0039?cid=32305

But my question is what percentage of the adult population our economy can
sustain as employed, money-earning workers. During the Clinton years, we had
a tech bubble. During the Reagan and G.W. Bush years, we had a
deficit-spending bubble. Are the employment rates we saw in those years
sustainable without some kind of bubble?

I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every
time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that
really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many
people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs?



If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%)
of the year 2000 as the norm
Then current employment (58.4)
is down about 10% from the norm

But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That
occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble.

During the best boom years of the 1960s, the rate was slightly less than it
is right now, at a time of economic distress. This is a very curious
situation.


But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying
which means businesses are not selling and
therefore won't be
hiring until they have some better prospects
of selling more of their goods and services

All of that is true. The question is, why?





So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an
interesting question, but it's curious that the historically
unprecedented
percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels
that
giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population
at
the top of the economic heap.

So current low employment would mean the opposite?
I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier

Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental.


The middle class may not be accumulating wealth
in the form of consumer goods
But they are also not accumulating debt
And the federal deficit is where the money is going
It's not going to the top earners.

Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit
spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are
winding up with the bulk of it.


Of course you take away the federal deficit
and you have a full blown depression

Possibly.


I suppose if you have invested your life savings
into over-priced gold and guns and ammo
you want a depression to avoid looking silly

I don't know what they want, but I'm encouraging the paranoids to buy as
many American-made guns as they can, and to shoot lots and lots of ammo.
It's much more fun than patting your gold bars. d8-)




In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally
unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession
took
the gas out of an employment bubble.

No evidence that is true

I don't know. I haven't tried to find out.


what was unsustainable is the level of consumption
that produced that high level of employment
And that was unsustainable because it was financed
by private debt which can't go up forever

Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another
type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out
present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has
productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural
unemployment?

In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears
have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our
economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How
many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless?


the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that
somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports
are -$0.5 trillion a year
The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years
to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit

But that is done now
they aint gonna do it anymore

So now what?

Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 15, 1:56*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't know what they want, but I'm encouraging the paranoids to buy as
many American-made guns as they can, and to shoot lots and lots of ammo.
It's much more fun than patting your gold bars. d8-)

Ed Huntress

I do not think you have been successful. I think they are all buying
foreign made assault rifles and foreign made ammunition. Apparently
Obama has kept all the Korean owed Garands out of the country.

Dan

Ed Huntress wrote:


Women became a larger part of the workforce

That's true, although it had flattened out around 20 years ago, until the
latest recession:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...0039?cid=32305

Looks like men got laid off much more than women
in both recessions in the last 10 years


But my question is what percentage of the adult population our economy can
sustain as employed, money-earning workers. During the Clinton years, we had
a tech bubble. During the Reagan and G.W. Bush years, we had a
deficit-spending bubble.

Not really - the public debt equals the trade deficit

Are the employment rates we saw in those years
sustainable without some kind of bubble?

What would be the negative impact of maintaining
full employment through deficit spending?

Keep in mind deficit spending
does not mean excess spending
It can as easily mean more money
available for consumers to spend (lower taxes)



I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every
time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that
really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many
people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs?

Do you mean how many millions of jobs can the US support in China?





If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%)
of the year 2000 as the norm
Then current employment (58.4)
is down about 10% from the norm

But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That
occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble.

There is no reason to believe a smaller portion
of the people want to work today
At any rate 10% seems to be the maximum
The U6 unemployment rate also includes people
who are working part time or temporary positions
who want full time permanent work
That number is about 16% of the work force
9% unemployed and 7% partially unemployed


During the best boom years of the 1960s, the rate was slightly less than it
is right now, at a time of economic distress. This is a very curious
situation.

Things are not functioning well



But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying
which means businesses are not selling and
therefore won't be
hiring until they have some better prospects
of selling more of their goods and services

All of that is true. The question is, why?

Consumers are not buying because debt to finance
consumption is no longer fashionable

There is no accounting for taste...

The main fear is that if deflation sets in
any amount of debt becomes onerous
A few years ago people believed deflation
was never possible
now they know better.






So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an
interesting question, but it's curious that the historically
unprecedented

It means the jobs exist they are just not being filled
Firms have the capacity to hire every one
But they don't have the sales to support that level of hiring




percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels
that
giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population
at
the top of the economic heap.

So current low employment would mean the opposite?
I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier

Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental.


The middle class may not be accumulating wealth
in the form of consumer goods
But they are also not accumulating debt
And the federal deficit is where the money is going
It's not going to the top earners.

Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit
spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are
winding up with the bulk of it.

Where is the evidence for that?

It looks to me that the federal excess spending is being
sucked up by the middle class and small businesses
to fix up their balance sheets
The federal deficit is not sufficiently large
to offset the current level of
reduction in private debt plus
the increase in savings
There nothing left over for the very rich





Of course you take away the federal deficit
and you have a full blown depression

Possibly.

What? Do you expect that
suddenly the consumer is going to suddenly
start buying goods and services
if the government stops spending
and start taking more out of the consumer's paycheck?
How is that even a remote possibility?









what was unsustainable is the level of consumption
that produced that high level of employment
And that was unsustainable because it was financed
by private debt which can't go up forever

Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another
type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out
present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has
productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural
unemployment?

What you are ignoring is the trade deficit



In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears
have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our
economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How
many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless?


There is no evidence that any bubble
has produced any growth
in the long run.




the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that
somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports
are -$0.5 trillion a year
The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years
to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit

But that is done now
they aint gonna do it anymore

So now what?

Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know.

There seem to be 3 possible courses

1) Balance the budget and create a depression
this would be to follow the theory that
"what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

2) Carry the economy on the backs of the Fed
create full employment and large Federal deficits
Eventually that will lower the value of the dollar
and slowly goods will drift back to being Made in USA
at the same pace they drifted away in the last 30 years

3) Maintain your structural high unemployment
and limp a long with little growth
and slowly declining wages and living standards








--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by
definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of
course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of
fat people.

The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican
fabrication.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...07&toYear=2011

According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at 15.8%

According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at nearly 20% (from
November last)

http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/...20-rising.html

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/us-un...-stands-at-21/
21% as of January...

Highest unemployment rate in April...27.9%


Yes Iggy...the unemployment is certainly there. And Id have to say..it
was a Democrat creation.

But hey comrade...you know better..right?

Gunner


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by
definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of
course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of
fat people.

The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican
fabrication.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...07&toYear=2011

According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at 15.8%

According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at nearly 20% (from
November last)

http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/...20-rising.html

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/us-un...-stands-at-21/
21% as of January...

Highest unemployment rate in April...27.9%

Yes Iggy...the unemployment is certainly there. And Id have to say..it
was a Democrat creation.

But hey comrade...you know better..right?


He's so ignorant that he thinks he can't lose everything overnight.


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote:

The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican
fabrication, just like everything else.

Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners
are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America?

There is no recession.

So, you don't know anyone who makes less money than you do and are
scraping hard to get by?


There are no homeowners without a home, by definition.

Oh, please. No semantics. You know as well as I do that I meant
"former homeowners".


There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of
course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of
fat people.

Thin and fat, rich and poor, but all do exist. Just because you don't
see or hear of anyone in your neighborhood starving doesn't mean that
there aren't starving people in the country. Do yourself a favor and
ask the people who run the soup kitchens in your city. They'll clue
you in, bigtime.


The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican
fabrication.

That may be the highest figure they saw in their research but not the
overall numbers in the country. It's way too high while we feed,
house, clothe, and school -known- illegal aliens. _That_ is a crime.
(And I include all races from all countries in that definition.)


Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike
at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours.

Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a
centrist with leftward leanings?

Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with
the Russians?

Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the
Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose
word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda?

This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo

Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all)

He???s improved America???s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you
have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major
leader said to me recently. ???We are convinced,??? he said, ???that he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,??? he said
???that he is not strong to support his friends."

Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.)

I'm not surprised you didn't comment on those. Democrats are in denial
of this pretty badly. Like the women who thought Clinton was a God.
It's baffling.

--
Happiness is when what you think, what
you say, and what you do are in harmony.
-- Mahatma Gandhi